| LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From time to time, the Company becomes involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include product liability, intellectual property, commercial, antitrust, governmental and regulatory investigations, related private litigation and ordinary course employment-related issues. From time to time, the Company also initiates actions or files counterclaims. The Company could be subject to counterclaims or other suits in response to actions it may initiate. The Company believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect the Company, its reputation and its assets. Certain of these proceedings and actions are described below. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings, potential settlements and other matters that could increase or decrease the amount of the liability accrued. As of June 30, 2017 , the Company's consolidated balance sheet includes accrued loss contingencies of $162 million related to matters which are both probable and reasonably estimable. For all other matters, unless otherwise indicated, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can it estimate the amount of loss, or range of loss, if any, that may result from these proceedings. An adverse outcome in certain of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause the market value of its common shares and/or debt securities to decline. Governmental and Regulatory Inquiries Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania The Company has received a letter dated September 10, 2015 from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stating that they are investigating potential violations of the False Claims Act arising out of Biovail Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s treatment of certain service fees under agreements with wholesalers when calculating and reporting Average Manufacturer Prices in connection with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The letter requests that the Company voluntarily produce documents and information relating to the investigation. The Company produced certain documents and clarifying information in response to the government’s request and is cooperating with the government’s investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of these investigations. U.S. Department of Justice Investigation On September 15, 2015, Bausch & Lomb International, Inc. (“B&L International”) received a subpoena from the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding agreements and payments between Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated and its subsidiaries (“B&L”) and medical professionals related to its surgical products Crystalens® IOL and Victus® femtosecond laser platform. The government has indicated that the subpoena was issued in connection with a criminal investigation into possible violations of Federal health care laws. B&L International produced certain documents in response to the subpoena and is cooperating with the investigation. The Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation; however, the Company believes that this matter will be resolved in the near future. Investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts In October 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, and, in June 2016, the Company received a follow up subpoena. The materials requested, pursuant to the subpoenas and follow-up requests, include documents and witness interviews with respect to the Company’s patient assistance programs and contributions to patient assistance organizations that provide financial assistance to Medicare patients taking products sold by the Company, and the Company’s pricing of its products. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation. Investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York In October 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The materials requested, pursuant to the subpoena and follow-up requests, include documents and witness interviews with respect to the Company’s patient assistance programs; its former relationship with Philidor and other pharmacies; the Company’s accounting treatment for sales by specialty pharmacies; information provided to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; the Company’s pricing (including discounts and rebates), marketing and distribution of its products; the Company’s compliance program; and employee compensation. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation. SEC Investigation Beginning in November 2015, the Company has received from the staff of the Los Angeles Regional Office of the SEC subpoenas for documents, as well as various document, testimony and interview requests, related to its investigation of the Company, including requests concerning the Company's former relationship with Philidor, its accounting practices and policies, its public disclosures and other matters. The Company is cooperating with the SEC in this matter. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of the SEC investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of the SEC investigation. Investigation by the State of North Carolina Department of Justice In the beginning of March 2016, the Company received an investigative demand from the State of North Carolina Department of Justice. The materials requested relate to the Company's Nitropress®, Isuprel® and Cuprimine® products, including documents relating to the production, marketing, distribution, sale and pricing of, and patient assistance programs covering, such products, as well as issues relating to the Company's pricing decisions for certain of its other products. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation. Request for Information from the AMF On April 12, 2016, the Company received a request letter from the Autorité des marchés financiers (the “AMF”) requesting documents concerning the work of the Company’s ad hoc committee of independent directors (the “Ad Hoc Committee”) (established to review certain allegations regarding the Company’s former relationship with Philidor and related matters), the Company’s former relationship with Philidor, the Company's accounting practices and policies and other matters. The Company is cooperating with the AMF in this matter. The Company has not received any notice of investigation from the AMF, and the Company cannot predict whether any investigation will be commenced by the AMF or, if commenced, whether any enforcement action against the Company would result from any such investigation. Investigation by the California Department of Insurance On or about September 16, 2016, the Company received an investigative subpoena from the California Department of Insurance. The materials requested include documents concerning the Company’s former relationship with Philidor and certain California-based pharmacies, the marketing and distribution of its products in California, the billing of insurers for its products being used by California residents, and other matters. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation. Investigation by the State of Texas On May 27, 2014, the State of Texas served Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (“B&L Inc.”) with a Civil Investigative Demand concerning various price reporting matters relating to the State's Medicaid program and the amounts the State paid in reimbursement for B&L products for the period from 1995 to the date of the Civil Investigative Demand. The Company and B&L Inc. have cooperated fully with the State's investigation and have produced all of the documents requested by the State. In April 2016, the State sent B&L Inc. a demand letter claiming damages in the amount of $20 million . The Company and B&L Inc. have evaluated the letter and disagree with the allegations and methodologies set forth in the letter. The Company and B&L Inc. have responded to the State and are awaiting further response from the State. California Department of Insurance Investigation On May 4, 2016, B&L International received from the Office of the California Insurance Commissioner an administrative subpoena to produce books, records and documents. On September 1, 2016, a revised and corrected subpoena, issued to B&L Inc., was received naming that entity in place of B&L International and seeking additional books records and documents. The requested books, records and documents are being requested in connection with an investigation by the California Department of Insurance and relate to, among other things, consulting agreements and financial arrangements between B&L and healthcare professionals in California, the provision of ocular equipment, including the Victus® femtosecond laser platform, by B&L to healthcare professionals in California and prescribing data for prescriptions written by healthcare professionals in California for certain of B&L’s products, including the Crystalens®, Lotemax®, Besivance® and Prolensa®. B&L Inc. and the Company are cooperating with the investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation. Securities and Other Class Actions Allergan Shareholder Class Actions On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, an alleged shareholder of Allergan filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of Allergan shareholders against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-02004-DOC). On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company, Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants contending that various purchases of Allergan securities by PS Fund were made while in possession of material, non-public information concerning a potential tender offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and asserting violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, various Pershing Square affiliates, William A. Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and, on November 9, 2015, the Court denied that motion. On March 15, 2017, the Court entered an order certifying a plaintiff class comprised of persons who sold Allergan common stock contemporaneously with purchases of Allergan common stock made or caused by defendants during the period February 25, 2014 through April 21, 2014. On March 28, 2017, defendants filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to appeal from the class certification order and on June 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied that request. On July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment. Those motions remain pending. Trial has been scheduled to start on January 30, 2018 in this matter. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters. On June 28, 2017, Timber Hill LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company that allegedly traded in Allergan derivative instruments, filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of derivative traders against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Timber Hill LLC v. Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., et al., Case No. 17-cv-04776-DOC). The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of investors who sold Allergan call options, purchased Allergan put options and/or sold Allergan equity forward contracts between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants contending that various purchases of Allergan securities by PS Fund were made while in possession of material, non-public information concerning a potential tender offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and asserting violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, various Pershing Square affiliates, William A. Ackman and Michael Pearson. The complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 25, 2017, the Court decided not to consolidate this lawsuit with the Basile action described above. Trial has been scheduled for October 2018 in this matter. On February 10, 2017, the Company, Valeant (together, the “Valeant Co Parties”) and J. Michael Pearson (together, the “Valeant Parties”) and Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd., Pershing Square International, Ltd., Pershing Square, L.P., Pershing Square II, L.P., PS Management GP, LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC, Pershing Square GP, LLC (together, “Pershing Square”), and William A. Ackman (“Ackman” and, together with Pershing Square, the “Pershing Square Parties”) entered into a litigation management agreement (the “Litigation Management Agreement”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to certain provisions with respect to the management of this litigation, including all cases currently consolidated with the Basile action described above and any opt-out litigation or individual actions brought by members of the putative class in the consolidated Basile action asserting the same or similar allegations or claims (collectively, the “Allergan Litigation”), including the following: • In respect of any settlement relating to the Allergan Litigation that receives the mutual consent of both the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties, the payments in connection with such settlement will be paid 60% by the Valeant Co Parties and 40% by the Pershing Square Parties. The agreement does not provide for any allocation of costs in a settlement that is not consented to by both parties; • The first $10 million in legal fees and litigation expenses incurred by the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties after the date of the Litigation Management Agreement in connection with the Allergan Litigation will be paid 50% by the Valeant Co Parties and 50% by the Pershing Square Parties; and • The Litigation Management Agreement will terminate on November 1, 2017 if a stipulation of settlement with regards to the current consolidated Basile action has not been executed by that date (unless the Litigation Management Agreement is extended by mutual written agreement of the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties). In addition to the agreements set out above with respect to the Allergan Litigation, the Litigation Management Agreement includes an undertaking by the Pershing Square Parties to forbear from commencing any action or actions that arise out of, or relate to, the claims alleged or facts asserted in the Allergan Litigation or to the purchase or acquisition of, or transactions with respect to, the Company’s securities against any of the Valeant Parties from February 3, 2017 until the date that is thirty days after the termination of the Litigation Management Agreement. Any statute of limitations applicable to such actions or tolled claims is suspended during this period. If the Litigation Management Agreement is terminated pursuant to its terms, the parties will meet and discuss whether any tolled claims should be submitted to confidential arbitration or mediation. Furthermore, in connection with the entrance into the Litigation Management Agreement, on February 10, 2017, the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties entered into a mutual release of claims (the “Mutual Release”). The Mutual Release will go into effect upon the later of satisfaction of the payment obligations that each party would have in connection with any settlement of the current consolidated Basile action pursuant to the Litigation Management Agreement described above and the date of entry of final judgment, and will not occur if the Litigation Management Agreement is terminated. If the Mutual Release becomes effective, each party will release the other parties and their respective attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, lenders and securities underwriters (in their capacities as such and to the extent they provide a mutual release) from any and all claims relating to or arising out of (a) any purchase of any security of Valeant, (b) any one or more of the claims asserted in and/or the facts alleged in (i) the Allergan Litigation, (ii) a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of Valeant securities captioned In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. Securities Litigation, Case 3:15-cv-07658- MAS-LHG, currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “U.S. Class Action”), (iii) certain enumerated individual actions and/or (iv) certain enumerated actions in Canada, or (c) the Valeant business. In addition, each party covenants not to sue the other parties with respect to any claims covered by the Mutual Release upon the effectiveness of the Mutual Release. Each party also covenants not to sue the other parties’ attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, lenders and securities underwriters (in their capacities as such) with respect to any of the claims covered by the Mutual Release from the date of the signing of the Mutual Release, except to the extent that (i) a claim has been asserted against such party by any such attorney, accountant, financial advisor, lender and/or securities underwriter or (ii) the Litigation Management Agreement has been terminated in accordance with its terms. Valeant U.S. Securities Litigation From October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. Those four actions, captioned Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7809), all asserted securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock during various time periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015. The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company’s use of specialty pharmacies, and the Company’s relationship with Philidor. On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658, and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel. On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint naming additional defendants and asserting additional claims based on allegations of false and misleading statements and/or omissions similar to those in the initial complaints. Specifically, the consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, and certain current or former officers and directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors, and certain other parties. The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company’s equity securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4, 2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the Company’s securities in the United States in the Company’s debt and stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015. On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Briefing on the Company's motion was completed on January 13, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the Court dismissed certain claims arising out of the Company's private placement offerings and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. Defendants' answers to the consolidated complaint were filed on June 12, 2017. In addition to the consolidated putative class action, ten groups of individual investors in the Company’s stock and debt securities have filed securities actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. These actions are captioned: T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-5034); Equity Trustees Limited as Responsible Entity for T. Rowe Price Global Equity Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6127); Principal Funds, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6128); BloombergSen Partners Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7212); Discovery Global Citizens Master Fund, Ltd. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7321); MSD Torchlight Partners, L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7324); BlueMountain Foinaven Master Fund, L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7328); Incline Global Master LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7494); VALIC Company I v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7496); and Janus Aspen Series v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7497) (“Janus Aspen”). These individual shareholder actions assert claims under Sections 10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and negligent misrepresentation under state law, based on alleged purchases of Valeant stock, options, and/or debt at various times between January 4, 2013 and August 10, 2016. The allegations in the complaints are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the putative class action. Plaintiffs in the Janus Aspen action amended the complaint on April 28, 2017. Defendants filed motions for partial dismissal in the ten individual actions on June 16, 2017. Briefing of those motions is expected to be completed on August 25, 2017. The Company believes the individual complaints and the consolidated putative class action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Canadian Securities Class Actions In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-00CP (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d) O’Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27, 2015). The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O’Brien, Catucci and Rousseau-Godbout actions also name, among others, certain current or former directors and officers of the Company. The Rosseau-Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec Superior Court by consent order. Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose material information about the Company’s business and prospects, relating to drug pricing, the Company’s policies and accounting practices, the Company’s use of specialty pharmacies and, in particular, the Company’s relationship with Philidor. The Alladina, Kowalyshyn and O’Brien actions also assert common law claims for negligent misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim additionally asserts common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act, including the statutory oppression remedies in that legislation. The Catucci action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code, alleging the Company breached its duty of care under the civil standard of liability contemplated by the Code. The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i) Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these actions are substantially similar to those outlined above. The Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do not intend to pursue the actions. The Company expects that certain of these actions will be consolidated or stayed prior to proceeding to motions for leave and certification and that no more than one action will proceed in any jurisdiction. In particular, on June 10, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered its decision on carriage motions (motions held to determine who will have carriage of the class action) heard on April 8, 2016, provisionally staying the O'Brien action, in favor of the Kowalyshyn action. On September 15, 2016, in response to an arrangement between the plaintiffs in the Kowalyshyn action and the O’Brien action, the court ordered both that the Kowalyshyn action be consolidated with the O’Brien action and that the consolidated action be stayed in favor of the Catucci action pending either the further order of the Ontario court or the determination of the motion for leave in the Catucci action. In the Catucci action, motions for leave under the Quebec Securities Act and for authorization as a class proceeding were heard the week of April 24, 2017, with the motion judge reserving her decision. Prior to that hearing, the parties resolved applications by the defendants concerning jurisdiction and class composition, with the plaintiffs agreeing to revise the definition of the proposed class to exclude claims in respect of Valeant securities purchased in the United States. The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. RICO Class Actions Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three virtually identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and various third parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) on behalf of a putative class of certain third party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Valeant branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015 (Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-03087, Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-3885 and N.Y. Hotel Trades Council et al v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-05663). On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation , No. 3:16-cv-03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on December 14, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured’s consent to renew the prescription. The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 13, 2017. Briefing of the motion was completed on May 17, 2017. That motion remains pending. On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to stay the RICO class action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner. The Company did not oppose the motion to stay. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Antitrust Solodyn® Antitrust Class Actions Beginning in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action suits were filed against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Medicis”), Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (“VPII”) and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enr |
